If you give ten people a piece of text, ask them to read it and then write down their impressions, you’ll probably get ten different answers. This is something known only too well to the police: ask all the witnesses to describe the man who robbed the store, you’ll get widely differing versions.

And so it is with politics: everyone has their own version of what is being campaigned over, what the hot topics are, who is leading in the polls, who is going to occupy the White House for the next term. And they all have their opinions about the other candidates too, more often than not, however, based upon a short glance at information rather than an in-depth reading.

It is a sad face that those who believe in one particular form of politics, be it left or right, liberal or conservative, do not want to hear what the other side has to say. Whether they fear being convinced , of having to change their opinion, or of hearing something that makes sense and which they would, not knowing who had said it, support, is another matter entirely. We live a news-life of snippets, headlines, opening paragraphs and, above all, prejudices.

Now, it may well be that this screenshot gives such an impression. The final Tweet here clearly shows another screenshot which says: Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination, and yet. And yet Zeke Miller writes something completely different, whilst referring to the same article from the New York Times as his colleagues. Is it possible to read anything else into those words other than a clear endorsement for Clinton? And, if so, how?